umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A comparison of navigators, snap-shot field monitoring, and probe-based field model training for correcting B0-induced artifacts in T2*-weighted images at 7 T
Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Show others and affiliations
(English)In: Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, ISSN 0740-3194, E-ISSN 1522-2594Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

Purpose

To compare methods for estimating B0 maps used in retrospective correction of high-resolution anatomical images at ultra-high field strength. The B0 maps were obtained using three methods: (1) 1D navigators and coil sensitivities, (2) field probe (FP) data and a low-order spherical harmonics model, and (3) FP data and a training-based model.

Methods

Data from nine subjects were acquired while they performed activities inducing B0 field fluctuations. Estimated B0 fields were compared with reference data, and the reductions of artifacts were compared in corrected T2* images.

Results

Reduction of sum-of-squares difference relative to a reference image was evaluated, and Method 1 yielded the largest artifact reduction: 27 ± 15%, 20 ± 18% (mean ± 1 standard deviation) for deep breathing and combined deep breathing and hand motion activities. Method 3 performed almost as well (24 ± 18%, 15 ± 17%), provided that adequate training data were used, and Method 2 gave a similar result (21 ± 16%, 19 ± 17%).

Conclusion

This study confirms that all of the investigated methods can be used in retrospective image correction. In terms of image quality, Method 1 had a small advantage, whereas the FP-based methods measured the B0 field slightly more accurately. The specific strengths and weaknesses of FPs and navigators should therefore be considered when determining which B0-estimation method to use. 

National Category
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-135678DOI: 10.1002/mrm.26524OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-135678DiVA: diva2:1105044
Available from: 2017-06-02 Created: 2017-06-02 Last updated: 2017-06-02

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Garpebring, Anders
By organisation
Radiation Physics
In the same journal
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 1 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf